Pringle says EU member states must be heard in Eurojust and other EU discussions
- Updated: 6th May 2022
Independent TD for Donegal, Thomas Pringle, said he supports an EU role in storing evidence of alleged war crimes in Ukraine, though he said member states must ensure all EU proposals are scrutinized and their voices must be heard.
Deputy Pringle addressed the Dáil today on a motion proposing expansion of the remit of Eurojust, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation, to allow it to become a central repository for evidence of war crimes in Ukraine.
Deputy Pringle said: “I am aware that the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the EU is meeting today to discuss the adoption of this proposal, which is a sad and sobering reminder that the input and discussions of national parliaments seem to have little to no effect whatsoever in discussions at EU level.
“The fact that this proposal will be rushed through, no matter what concerns are raised by TDs here today, is an unfortunate trend that’s been occurring at EU level in the past few years, and I think it is something that we need to seriously consider going forward.
“The EU is supposed to amplify countries’ voices, not take them away altogether,” he said.
The deputy said: “I have been very disturbed to read about alleged war crimes that have occurred in Ukraine over the last few months. Ukraine’s prosecutor general’s office has opened more than 9,300 investigations into alleged war crimes and identified hundreds of suspects from Russia, with the true number expected to be much higher.”
He said there is no doubt there is a real need for a central storage for evidence relating to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and said Eurojust has the expertise and experience for the coordinated effort required for all states collecting evidence.
It is clear that the process of holding Vladimir Putin responsible for these alleged war crimes will be very long and complex – Ukrainian and international experts have said it will take years, if not decades, to collect evidence, build cases and prosecute people, he said.
Deputy Pringle said: “Although I am glad that the proposal clearly states that the collection of evidence does not amount to providing Eurojust with an executive role as investigating authority, I am wary that it states, ‘when necessary and appropriate’ Eurojust will enable the exchange of evidence or otherwise ‘make it available to the competent judicial authorities, national and international’.
“I wonder who decides when it is ‘necessary and appropriate’ and who decides on the ‘competent judicial authority’. I have often talked of the importance of Ireland’s neutral voice, and I feel that this is where our neutrality could be of huge importance, in making sure that extremely important decisions, such as these, are made fairly. This is where we can most effectively lend our highly respected, neutral oversight and input,” he said.
He said the evidence storage role of Eurojust is suitable in Ukraine’s situation, but said: “I have concerns of expanding their remit in general. I wouldn’t like it to be a case that Eurojust be allowed to take and store evidence of any state should it be the request of a member state to do so.”
Deputy Pringle concluded: “Overall, I support this motion in the context of Ukraine’s situation, however I am always concerned about proposals with an expedited negotiation process, especially at EU level. Member states must ensure that all proposals are scrutinized adequately and concerns must be listened to and addressed.”
